Dear Karen, I should think that the safest classification that the
medievals might have used would be *mystice*, possibly *allegorice* or
*moraliter*. But of course, the medievals tended to be cleverly discrete
about these kinds of labels -- leaving it up to us moderns to split
hairs!
I'm curious about your text. When I saw your note, I pulled down the
Gloss, but the Gloss is rather silent on this particular verse. I
suppose it's because the basic outlines of the spiritual interpretation
have already been laid out in the commentary on the preceding verses.
I don't have Lyra at hand, but I would imagine that it would fall under
his *mystice* or ever *moraliter* interpretations (he liked -- or at
least his publishers liked -- to label these things!)
Mark Zier
[log in to unmask]
On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Dr. Karen Jolly wrote:
> I am wondering how list members, thinking like a medieval exegete,
> would classify this interpretation of a section in Psalm 9:
>
> Miserere mihi domine et uide humiliatem meam de inimicis meis qui
> exaltas me de portis mortis ut adnuntiem omnes laudes tuas in portis
> filiae sion
> where "inimicis" is glossed "id est de diabolo" and "gatum deofles"
> is glossed "de diabolorum" (an interpretation coming from Cassiodorus).
>
> Would you call the reading of enemies and death as devil:
> literal/historical? anagogical? allegorical or even typological? or
> unclassifiable?
> I have reasons for thinking of each of these in turn, but am curious
> to know the views of the more exegetically minded on the list.
> Karen
> --
> Dr. Karen Jolly
> Associate Professor, History
> University of Hawai`i at Manoa
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kjolly
>
>
> one: (619) 594-0807
> Fax: (619) 594-0545
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|